Jump to content

Talk:Ternopil

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Article: de:Ternopil Corresponding English-language article: Ternopil Worth doing because: famous shtetl and no article Originally Requested by: --Sheynhertz-Unbayg 04:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC) Status: translation finished Lectonar 08:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC) Other notes: Supported:

I deleted the jew history paragraph because a city in a country is not a "jew related stub" as the previuos version said. That information about jewish history should be placed in another article. I will add relevant information in the future.

New edits

[edit]

Vasyl Avramenko was not born in Ternopil. If anything, he may have passed through there later in life, but I don't have that information at this moment. I will remove him unless there's a reason to keep him. With that in mind, what do the other names signify, and are they from the same source as the one that listed Avramenko?
Can the Jewish Tarnopol paragraph be integrated with the rest of the article? Right now it looks segregated like an alternate history.--tufkaa 22:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics 1939

[edit]

"In 1939 it was a city of 40,000; 50% of the population was Polish, 10% Ukrainian and most of the remaining part was Jewish."
I can't find the source of this. Does anyone have this? --Jeroenvrp 23:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is simle speculation which seems to be common throughout the towns that used to be part of Poland. The main goal of that statistics to show that no nationality such as the Ukrainian existed. And if it even did it was a pure minority. Such edits usually done by a common ethnic Polish who does not recognize and never will that Ukrainian nationality carries no less value as the Polish. That is the result of the historical discrimination that took place throughout the history. Ukrainians on the right bank of Dnipro were discriminated by Polish, and on the left bank -- by Russians. Russians as well as Polish tried to fight the influence of the other culture, building all of the blame upon the Ukrainian culture and considering it as the scewed version of its own by the neighboring country. At the end the Ukrainian nationality was never recognized. The Ukrainian literature was forbidden and the Ukrainian culture was consider as of the less developed version of eather Russian or Polish counterpart. Those were the basic grounds of hatred that existed among Ukrainians and caused the war for independence by Bohdan Khmelnytskyi, Koliivschina, OUN-UPA. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

[edit]

Currently there is a huge footnote explaining in short words what happened in 1918. However, it's definitely biased and full of errors.

  • The Jewish and German population accepted the new Ukrainian state, but the Poles started the military campaign against the Ukrainian authority. - well, technically it was the other way around
  • On November 11, 1918 following the bloody fighting the Polish forces captured Lviv - and again, in reality it were the Ukrainian units that failed to capture Lvov, not the Poles who captured it. Poles were already there :)

//Halibutt 20:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Residents

[edit]

Would the residents of Ternopil/Tarnopol have been considered Polish citizens in the years 1918-1920? Kaiser matias 22:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is an odd question. At that period in Ternopil lived not only Polish citizens, but also Hungarian citizens, Russian citizens, German citizens, and many others. It wasn't like there was a thourough ethnic cleansing that had taken place or the mass pasport exchange. The city simply became a part of the Ukrainian state with the possibility for Ukrainians to recognize themselve as such rather than Polish, if you that intended to ask. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polish town and Judeocentrism

[edit]

For me as a Pole it's an insult,not the first and last one on Wikipedia,the Jew and German pushing medium,that there's no talk of its Polishness,how the city was for centuries (!) part of Poland,how it was funded,built and defended by Poles and the scale of its links with Polishness;yet there is a whole paragraph about Jews!Could someone tell me why Wikipedia is writing about places thoroughly linked with Poles and Poland like about a city with no links to my nation?The Germans are pushing their agenda full scale on topics related to western Poland and there are hords of germanophiles on the English Wikipedia and they also want to erase every notion of Polishness east of the Bug river.In short their agenda is that:extend German propaganda wherever it is possible (and where it is not!) and at the same time belittle Polish rule east of the Bug river. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.9.72.14 (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History - Ukrainian POV

[edit]
  • Soviet repressions 1939-1941 weren't only anti-Ukrainian, so why only Ukrainian patriots are mentioned? Poles are "members of former administration".
  • What happened to the Polish police commander, wasn't he murdered by NKVD? Families were deported, police officers murdered.
  • What was the ethnicity of "local inhabitants" who murdered the Jews? Xx236 (talk) 07:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the connection between Joseph Perl and Russian rules? The second partition means probably the Congress of Vienna, doesn't it?Xx236 (talk) 07:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing irrelevant naming conventions from the lead

[edit]

I am removing the German and Russian naming conventions from the lead per WP:UNDUE and WP:LEADCLUTTER. The German (well, actually Austro-Hungarian) and Russian connection is in the body of the article, and is not relevant to recent history. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly like to make controversial edits and insist on them, despite being challenged several times. I'm going to roll back one last time – to the stable version – please don't make the same edit again until there's a consensus established here.
Now let's discuss the merits of why you insist on this particular edit. The way I see it, the article has been stable with respect to the lead containing 4 different versions on the name, and all of them are clearly relevant to the history of the place – with multiple references existing to all four spellings (well, it's actually 3 spellings across 4 languages). So there's a good reason to mention them all in the article, so that the readers who come to the article could understand the different naming variations used in reference to the city, could connect them all to the same city, and not have to guess about this (or have to browse through inter-wiki – which is a very round-about way).
So here: there are three arguments to keep the stable version as is: stability of the article, historical relevance of all the names (indeed, all of them are used in the article itself), and readers' convenience. What's the argument for removal that is strong enough to outweigh these? cherkash (talk) 06:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've already pointed out WP:UNDUE for the WP:LEAD. Please provided some policy and guideline arguments as to why an extensive list of naming conventions are relevant to the lead.
As regards 'stable version', if you care to check, I've actually restored the version you're advocating in the past, however there has never actually been any discussion as to all of the naming conventions being of relevance in the lead. The German variant was only added by an IP a couple of years ago. As for my bold edits "being challenged several times", the only challenger was you alone. You've yet to convince me that it's WP:DUE for the lead. No one else is participating in this discussion, therefore how could I "... clearly like to make controversial edits and insist on them..."? Also note that you are violating WP:NPA in drawing negative conclusions as to my character. We're discussing the content in the lead, yet you're constant reverts with lack of policy-based arguments would indicate that you're treating the subject matter as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I have no objections to the naming conventions being mentioned in the body of the article, but fail to see why they are of relevance in such a brief lead. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing personal in this discussion, so let's focus on the subject: whether mentioning of Polish, Ukrainian, German & Russian names belongs to the lead or not. German and Polish names are spelled the same way, so the discussion is about relevance of 3 spelling variants to the article's lead. I've already mentioned three reasons:
  • Stability: all 3 spellings have been in the article's lead since the very beginning, going back to at least August 2004, more than 10 years.
  • Historical relevance (obvious in this case, in fact there are many sources mentioning the city by each variant)
  • Readers' convenience: the city referred to by all 3 name variants in the body of the article, as well as in multiple sources – and hence the lead (more precisely, the naming in the first sentence) is the most natural place to mention all three.
cherkash (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not getting back on this matter sooner, Cherkash. I've been flat out on other articles and... well, it all gets put into perspective. To be honest, I'm not actually fussed. If you truly believe that it's historically warranted, I'm fine with it. If you check against Russian Wikipedia, there's no mention of their spelling in the lead. The only version that makes a point of featuring the German spelling is, of course, German Wikipedia (where it's simply noted as having the same spelling as the Polish). It doesn't appear to be a matter any of the countries involved seem concerned about in terms of naming conventions, but certainly not a matter worth being WP:POINTy about. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Affiliations Box

[edit]
Historical affiliations

Kingdom of Poland 1540–1569
Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth 1569-1772
Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria 1772–1804
Austrian Empire 1804–1809
Russian Empire 1809–1815
Austrian Empire 1815–1867
Austro-Hungarian Empire 1867-1918
West Ukrainian People's Republic 1918-1919
Ukrainian People's Republic 1919-1920
Poland Poland 1920-1939
 Soviet Union 1939–1941
 Nazi Germany 1941–1944
 Soviet Union 1944–1991
 Ukraine 1991–present


I made a timeline and this little box. Debating on which one to throw into the article. I want to include the month and days into here but I feel as if it would be too much. 155.247.166.28 (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first problem is with the nomenclature. "Affiliation" implies a positive and voluntary association. Definition:
1. To adopt or accept as a member, subordinate associate, or branch.
2. To associate (oneself) as a subordinate, subsidiary, employee, or member.
3. To assign the origin of.
I don't know how one establishes that a territory (or inhabitants thereof) has/have nominated to 'affiliate' themselves with dynastic empires, etc... but I'm fairly certain that it's WP:OR to suggest that these are related to the will of the people.
I'm not sure whether such a timeline is desirable. Other editors may have a different opinion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I suggest the use of "Association" instead of affiliation then. I would also suggest checking the english 'Lviv' page which has a similar timeline. Ternopil has a complex history of numerous powers ruling over it over the years and I think it helps people orient themselves. 129.32.224.78 (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Associated" is definitely more neutral. What would you say to opening a discussion of the terminology on the Lviv talk page, and asking for opinions for this article simultaneously? The Lviv article has far more eyes on it and would assist in expediting the use of such boxes with consensus as to appropriate nomenclature. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Searching 'Historical affiliations' in Wikipedia brings about more than a few dozen city/town articles with the same exact phrasing with no issues from any users of using this word on the talk pages. I will reinstate this unless there is any objection. 129.32.224.73 (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point out some of the articles, please? I've found an example on the Chernyanka, Belgorod Oblast. The fact that it's been 'adopted' for articles in Slavic regions, for example, doesn't mean that the convention is a good one. Most of these articles have been developed by editors for whom English is not a native language, therefore it's not written in stone. Personally, I find it particularly disquietening to see Nazi Germany as an 'affiliation'. Applied in this sense, "Historical affiliations" is misleading. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camenca https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottbus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weißenfels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rîbnița https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meissen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sangerhausen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freiberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bautzen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merseburg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Wrocław https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Bydgoszcz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijampolė https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedland,_Brandenburg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bielefeld https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Köpenick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittenberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belaya_Kalitva https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donetsk,_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salsk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krasny_Sulin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Müncheberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valletta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadjoura

These are some examples of articles using the term. I will switch the term to 'Associations' and include the box into the article 72.94.101.244 (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. No other editors appear to be interested one way or the other. Leave it as 'affiliations' for parity between articles. By all means, go ahead! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ternopil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Gut

[edit]

This is the town where Irene Gut helped Jews during WWII. 164.47.187.32 (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposed

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
It's been about a year, and with no refuting, I will split this. Pinging participants M2545 and Ymblanter.

Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The history section of this article is long enough to merit its own article. See also Ukrainian-language article: History of Ternopil. Thoughts? -- M2545 (talk) 10:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it makes sense to me. Ymblanter (talk) 08:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove all other translation of the city

[edit]

Please leave only the translations of the name of the city in Ukrainian since it's a Ukrainian city and in English which is an international language, the article is written in English. At least you can delete the ruzzian and belaruzzian translations, it has no place in the article, as a Ukrainian I find offensive and disrespectful.

Thank you very much in advance.

Kind regards, P.Lykhoviter (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ternopil&oldid=1212313670"